Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3874_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 3874 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS TAKING LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE IN THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDLANDS AND THE REDLANDS POLICE OFFICERS ' ASSOCIATION WHEREAS , the City of Redlands ("City" ) , pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act , and to the reasonable rules and regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations adopted by the City following good faith consulta- tion with representatives of employee organizations repre- senting employees in the City , and set forth in the City of Redlands Resolution No . 2786 (hereinafter referred to as "the Employer-Employee Resolution" ) , has met and conferred in good faith with the Redlands Police Officers ' Association ("Association" ) , the recognized employee organization repre- senting employees in the Police Officers ' Unit , on matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations , including wages , hours , and other terms and conditions of employment ; and WHEREAS , the Association submitted a proposal to I the City for meeting and conferring, dated April 21 , 1982 , r and attached hereto as Exhibit "A. " Said proposal consisted of twelve separate requests , eleven of which would have resulted in an increase in direct costs to the City for police officer wages and benefits ; and I WHEREAS , according to a cost analysis of this proposal prepared by City staff, Items No . 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 of the Association' s proposal would have resulted in an additional cost to the City for police officer compensa- tion during the 1982-83 fiscal year of approximately $647 ,035 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , in addition to the proposal received from the Association the City received proposals from two other employee organizations representing employees of the City. The cost of these proposals , when added to the cost of proposals received from the Association, brought the total cost of the proposals received from the three employee organizations representing City employees to an amount well in excess of $1 ,000 , 000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , based upon its projections , the City anticipated that expenses from its General Fund would exceed income into the General Fund by several hundred thousand dollars , in both fiscal year 1981-82 and fiscal year 1982-83 . Numerous day-to-day City expenses , including many employee salaries and benefits are paid from the General Fund. While the City has other funds in addition to the General Fund, these other funds are restricted by law or policy for specific purposes ; and WHEREAS , for many years the City Council of the City of Redlands maintained a policy of holding the General Fund Reserve Account to a level of no less than ten percent -2- of the General Fund budget . Among other reasons , this fund was reserved to make up shortfalls in the General Fund ; and WHEREAS , the consequence of transferring funds from the General Fund Reserve Account to make up shortfalls in the General Fund was the depletion of the General Fund Reserve Account to a level well below ten percent of the General Fund budget , the figure traditionally deemed prudent and responsible by the City Council ; and WHEREAS , the City has been experiencing a decrease in revenues received from the State of California and other sources , as a result of Proposition 13 and other similar measures , and has been facing the very real possibility that further cuts in revenue received from the State will be made ; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that prudent and responsible fiscal management was essential to protect existing reserves and restricted funds , as it had become apparent that restoring these reserves and restricted funds would be most difficult in the foreseeable future under the financial circumstances that the City was facing; and WHEREAS , the City was forced to make some very difficult decisions to protect and maintain its longstanding fiscally secure position; and WHEREAS , upon careful consideration of its fiscal condition and the best ways to prevent premature deteriora- tion of that condition while maintaining the desired level of services to its citizens , the City recognized that a - 3- major cost savings to the City could be realized in the 1982-83 fiscal year budget by granting no increases in employee wages and benefits ; and WHEREAS , there were three primary factors in the City ' s decision to propose no increases in employee wages and benefits for the 1982-83 fiscal year: (a) The bleak fiscal circumstances facing the City , including the prospect that these circumstances were likely to become worse before becoming better; (b ) The fact that the City ' s existing employee compensation package , including the one applicable to Police Officers , is fair and competitive . As the result of regular and generous increases in wages and benefits granted by the City to employees in past meet and confer sessions , City employees , including Police Officers , presently receive an attractive and competitive compensation package , including yearly step increases within their salary ranges . These yearly step increases were not affected by the City ' s deci- sion to hold the line on employee wages and benefits ; and (c ) The City ' s existing employee compensation package enables the City to recruit and retain well-qualified employees , including Police Officers . Due to the regular and generous increases in employee compensation granted by the City over the past several years , the City regularly receives applications from more well-qualified individuals than it can actually employ , and of the little turnover in -4- f employees the City experiences , none is attributed to sub- standard employee compensation; and WHEREAS , on May 25 , 1982 , City representatives met with representatives of the Association to commence the meet and confer process for fiscal year 1982-83 . At that meeting, Association representatives explained in detail each element of the Association' s proposal . All but one would have resulted in a direct increased cost to the City. The one Proposal that would not so result in the Association' s request for arbitration of interest disputes , was rejected as the City preferred to maintain the flexibility built into its existing impasse resolution procedure; and WHEREAS , the City representative responded to the Association' s proposals by explaining the City ' s worsening financial problems , and informed the Association that , in the absence of significant improvement in the City ' s finan- cial condition, the City believed it to be in the City' s long-term best interest not to grant an increase in employee wages and benefits for fiscal year 1982-83 . The City noted that the failure to act prudently and responsibly now, in the face of current and potentially greater economic troubles , would only hasten the deterioration of the City' s fiscal security , which could lead to layoffs , reduction in pay and hours , and other undesirable employee and service effects that the City hoped to avoid.. The City offered to continue to meet with representatives of the Association to further explain its fiscal policies and its reasons for rejecting -5- the Association' s proposals for an increase in employee wages and benefits , and agreed to continue to monitor its financial situation for improvement in relation to the Association' s proposals . The City also agreed to consider any additional no cost proposals (so-called noneconomic items ) presented by the Association, and to discuss a no-cost redistribution of existing employee compensation, if the Association so desired; and WHEREAS , based upon the stated preference of the Association, the parties did not meet again until July 2, 1982 . At that meeting, the City' s representative explained to representatives of the Association that there was no change in the City' s financial condition that would enable the City to change its position and offer raises . Association representatives stated that their proposal for additional vacation benefits would not result in an additional cost to the City, on the premise that vacation costs are already included in salaries being paid to employees . The City representative countered that premise by pointing out that if the existing level of service was to be maintained increases in employee absences due to increased vacation time would result in either additional expense for the hiring of additional officers or increased cost in employee overtime compensation, or both, to cover these absences . Association representatives did not further dispute the City ' s position that increased vacation time would result in an increased cost to the City; and -6- WHEREAS , at the July 2 meeting, Association repre- sentatives also stated that the City could convert to a ten-hour day , four-day per week scheduling plan, as requested by the Association in its proposal , without incurring any additional costs . The City representative agreed to study this issue and report back to the Association, indicating that if such a plan could be accomplished without additional cost to the City, the City would work with the Association towards implementing such a plan; and WHEREAS , the Redlands Chief of Police did in fact study the Association' s proposal for a "4/10 scheduling" plan and concluded that there would be a significant in- creased cost to the City if this form of scheduling were adopted. This conclusion was communicated to Association representatives who did not further dispute the contention of the City that adoption of a 4/10 plan would result in an additional cost to the City ; and WHEREAS , on July 9 , 1982 , the City Council of the City of Redlands adopted the fiscal year 1982-83 budget ; and WHEREAS , in order to balance that budget , the City Council most reluctantly modified some of its long-standing fiscal policies , including: (a) Reduction of its General Fund Reserve Account factor from no less than ten percent of the General Fund budget to no less than seven percent of the General Fund l budget ; -7- (b) Reduction of its contractually established industrial development restricted fund by almost $300 ,000 . 00 ; and (c) Elimination of regular contributions to its restricted self-insurance fund, which resulted in said fund indefinitely falling short of the desired level recommended to the City by its expert advisor on insurance matters ; and WHEREAS , Association and City representatives met again on July 22 , 1982 , at the request of the Association. At that meeting, Association representatives asserted that , in light of the City' s modification of previously long- standing fiscal policies in the 1982-83 Budget , there was no reason that the City could not further modify its fiscal policies to accommodate the Association' s proposals . The City representative pointed out to Association' s represen- tatives that the City had reluctantly modified its tradi- tional fiscal policies only in an attempt to achieve a balanced budget ; and WHEREAS , at the July 22 , 1982 meeting, Association representatives asked "hypothetically" "if" the City would be "interested" in receiving a proposal from the Association whereby the City would agree to grant the following increases in employee wages and benefits to Association members , in return for an agreement from the Association that if certain City funds or accounts fell below predetermined levels , the City would be excused from further performance under the -8- terms of the agreement granting the wage and benefit increases : 1 . Seven percent across-the-board salary increase ; 2 . $30 . 00 per month increase in employee dependent health insurance benefits ; 3 . An additional $250 . 00 per year uniform allow- ance for each employee; 4 . Establish a pay differential of two and one-half percent between police officers and corporals ; and 5 . Increase the standby pay guarantee by two hours . The Association gave an example of the predetermined balances in City accounts it would consider reasonable , if it in fact decided to make this proposal formally; these balances were considerably below the reduced levels that had been recently and very reluctantly established by the City Council in order to attempt to balance the City' s budget ; and WHEREAS , at the July 22 meeting, Association representatives were advised by the City representative that the City would probably not be receptive to this type of proposal, since it would probably push the City further towards the brink of financial crisis , and reiterated that the City had recently modified its fiscal policy and reduced reserve and restricted funding reluctantly , and only in an attempt to balance the budget . The Association said it would decline to make a formal proposal of the type dis- ' 9- cussed unless and until the City indicated its willingness to accept a framework of this type ; and WHEREAS , at each of the aforementioned meet and confer sessions between Association and City representatives , City representatives offered to entertain so-called non- economic, no cost proposals from the Association, but the Association made no such proposals ; and WHEREAS , City representatives concluded that the possibility of the settlement by direct discussion had been exhausted and that the City and the Association had reached a deadlock and their meeting and conferring in good faith on differences on matters to be included in a Memorandum of Understanding, and concerning matters upon which they are required to meet and confer, remained so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would be futile ; and WHEREAS , in accordance with Section 13 of the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution, the City initiated impasse procedures by filing with the Association a written request , dated August 4 , 1982 , for an impasse meeting , together with a statement of its position on all disputed issues ; and WHEREAS , an impasse meeting was duly held, at which the issues remaining in dispute from the meet and confer process were identified, and the positions of the parties were reviewed in a final effort to resolve the disputed issues ; and -10- WHEREAS , the disputed issues were not resolved at the impasse meeting; and WHEREAS , the Association proposed that it and the City enter into a third-party impasse resolution procedure; and WHEREAS , the City declined to enter into a third- party impasse resolution procedure , and thus , the parties were unable to agree to any other dispute-resolving proce- dure ; and WHEREAS , Section 13 of the Employer-Employee Rela- tions Resolution provides that if the parties are unable to resolve an impasse through the impasse meeting, and are unable to mutually select a specific procedure to which the dispute shall be submitted, the matter shall be referred to the City Council; and WHEREAS , the Association was informed that before the matter was referred to the City Council , it would have an opportunity to appear before the City Council and make a direct presentation on its full position concerning the impasse ; and WHEREAS , on September 7 , 1982 , an Association representative appeared before the City Council and requested that the City Council direct the City and the Association to enter into a third-party impasse resolution procedure. The Association chose not to present its position on the substan- tive issues that were in dispute in the meet and confer process , although it was given the opportunity to do so; and _ 11- WHEREAS , the City Council declined to direct City representatives and the Association to enter into a third- parte- impasse resolution procedure at its September 7 , 1982 meeting; and WHEREAS , before the City Council took any action to resolve the impasse , the City learned through unofficial sources that the City might receive a refund, or a reduction in pension contribution rates from the Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS" ) as a result of Senate Ball No . 46 of the 1952 legislative session; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that the anticipated benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 could create a framework for settlement of the impasses existing between it and the three employee organizations representing City employees , but concluded that it would be imprudent to make a firm proposal to or enter .into an agreement with the three employee organi- zations on the basis of benefits derived from Senate Bill No . 46 until official notification concerning those benefits had been received from PERS ; and WHEREAS , the City directed its representative to return to each of the employee organizations and inform them that the City was reconsidering its no increase position in light of the development related to Senate Bill No . 46 ; and WHEREAS , on November 16 , 1982 , the City represen- tative and Association representatives met to discuss the possibility of settlement of the 1952-83 fiscal year meet and confer impasse by using some or all of the proceeds of - 12- Senate Bill No . 46 as the cornerstone of such a settlement . At that meeting, the City representative advised Association representatives that the City could not make a firm proposal for settlement until official notice on the terms of Senate Bill No . 46 was received from the Public Employees Retirement System; however, the City wanted to let the Association know that it was considering a departure from its no increase posture; and WHEREAS , at the November 16 meeting, the City representative discussed, pending official notice on Senate Bill No . 46 , the following possible framework for settlement : 1 . Application to employees of some or all of monetary benefits accruing the City as a result of Senate Bill No . 46 , provided that any such application would be limited to the 1982-83 fiscal year only , because any benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 were anticipated to be limited to the last six months of the 1982-83 fiscal year. 2 . Amendment of the existing Public Employees Retirement System contract to allow for individual employee vesting of amounts paid by the City of the employees ' share of the PERS contribution. 3 . An opportunity to enter into the State Unem- ployment Disability Insurance program. 4 . Adoption of a modified grievance and dis- ciplinary appeal procedure . WHEREAS , the City representative informed Associa- tion representatives , and the representatives of other City - 13- employee organizations , that any offer made using benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 would be made as a good faith gesture to City employees and in hopes of obtaining labor peace for the remainder of the fiscal year, but not as any type of recognition that the City ' s fiscal plight had improved to the point where substantial increases in employee wages and benefits could be granted; and WHEREAS , Association representatives did not expressly reject the framework for settlement discussed by the City, but advised the City that the Association would be willing to receive another proposal if and when the City had all information necessary to make a firm, definite proposal; and WHEREAS , in early December, 1982 , the City received official word from the Public Employees Retirement System that it would receive a one-time credit against the City' s agency contribution due to the Public Employees Retirement System, amounting to $358 , 835 . 34 , for the period covering January 1 , 1983 to June 30, 1983 ; and WHEREAS , the City was faced with the difficult choice between using the benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 to restore reserve and restricted funds to the previous levels long deemed to be prudent and necessary by the City , or attempting to achieve labor peace with its employees ; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that both alterna- tives constituted a worthy and responsible use of City funds , and decided to divide the benefits of Senate Bill - 14- No . 46 equally between the City ' s employees and other City needs in hopes of achieving labor peace for the remainder of the 1982-83 fiscal year; and WHEREAS , the City believed that the most equitable way to allocate the half of the Senate Bill No . 46 benefits that would be offered to employees would be to divide the total amount allocated to employees by the number of employee positions in the City, resulting in an amount per City employee of approximately $548 . 00 . The amount to be offered to each employee organization was based upon the number of employee positions in the applicable unit times the amount available per employee City-wide ; and WHEREAS , the City authorized its representative to offer a proposal for settlement using the funds as allocated above , and to offer the employee organizations flexibility so that they could decide how the total amount allocated per employee organization unit would be distributed within the unit ; and WHEREAS , the City also authorized its representa- tive to offer to all three employee organizations an amend- ment to the applicable Public Employees Retirement System contract that would provide for individual employee vesting of amounts paid by the City of the employees ' share of the PERS contribution, and to make any savings to the City as a result of said amendment available to employees , on a pro rata basis for the remainder of the fiscal year; to offer the opportunity to enroll in the State Unemployment Dis -15- ability Insurance program; and to offer a modified grievance and appeal procedure ; and WHEREAS , on December 21 , 1982 , the City resolved its impasse and reached agreement with the employee organiza- tion representing the largest number of City employees on the basis of the City ' s aforementioned proposal for settlement ; and WHEREAS , on December 22 , 1982 , City representa- tives met with representatives of the Association and made the aforementioned proposal , describing it as the City' s last and best offer; and WHEREAS , the Association representatives stated they would take the offer under consideration; and WHEREAS , on January 3 , 1983 , an Association repre- sentative informed the City that the Association had wholly rejected the City' s offer; and WHEREAS , the City Council now finds that the parties have exhausted the means for resolving the impasse among themselves , and that a direction from the City Council that the parties enter into a third-party dispute resvolving procedure to resolve the impasse would be futile ; and WHEREAS , it is the City Council ' s position that to increase the City ' s last offer to the Association would result in the further depletion of reserves for contingencies and unforeseen City needs , and would hasten the deterioration of the City ' s overall financial condition; and that this position is further necessitated by prudent fiscal management -16- and the uncertainties associated with municipal government finance, including trends and projections signaling a con- tinued decline in monies available to municipal governments from the State and other sources ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows : 1 . The City Council hereby takes the following action regarding the impasse and deems such action to be in the public interest : All current wages , hours and other terms and conditions of employment applicable to employees in the Police Officers unit shall remain in full force and effect for the remainder of fiscal year 1982-83 . 2 . This legislative action by the City Council of the City of Redlands is final and binding pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brawn Act and the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. ebruar ADOPTED this 1st day of;, , ekuary-, 1983 . afI} Mayor, City of Redlands ATTEST: Ci Cler? : ty of Redlands -17- SILVER do KnEISLER STEDutH u SILVER A PRD�ESStONLL LAS CORPORATION 19Jt? AA ART++UR ZDULEVARD. SUI,( Rs{NA`,� u. RREISLER 142E SECOND STREET, SUIT 20. 1Rv1NE, CALSFORNIA 9ZJ1� CHARLES A GOLDWASSER SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90001 TELEPHONE (7sa) 9.51971 G;ODC4 % SNAEGFER. JR TELEPHONE t2131 3931485 J LEONARD STERN STEVEN C. "Y,E TELEPHONE (213) 670.0900 MICHAEL L RAINS r E=,ARD G. PELL April 21 , 1982 GREGORY L. ADLER �l _ EARBARA J" HESS J~ O: COUNSEL N0R4,L.N B. SILVER Rorl;07 N. STONE CHARLES I_ DOLGINER APR p 2 iota Chris Christiansen City Manager City of Redlands P. O. Box 280 Redlands , California 92373 Re: Proposal of Redlands Police Officers Associ- ation for Changes in Wages , Hours and Other Terms and Conditions of Employment for the 1982-83 Fiscal Year Dear Mr. Christiansen: Pursuant to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act (California Government Code Section 3500 , et seq. ) , the Redlands Police Officers Association makes the following proposals for changes in wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for all employees represented by the Association for the 1982-83 fiscal year. Unless otherwise indicated, all such proposals are to be effective July 1 , 1982 : 1. Provision to each affected employee of a $450 per year clothing allowance. 2. Amendment of the City employer-employee relations resolution so as to mandate the use of non-binding arbitration with regard to the resolution of impasse upon matters within the scope of representation. 3. Provision to each affected employee of a fully- paid comprehensive physical examination to be conducted on an alternate year basis. 4. Provision to each affected employee of a regularly scheduled workweek consisting of four, ten hour days within any seven-day cycle. Fr h e n SILVEn & RREISLER Chris Christiansen April 21, 1982 Page Two 5. Provision to each affected employee of a 100€ City-paid employee and dependent dental and orthodontic plan. 6. Provision to each affected employee of a 100€ City-paid employee and dependent health insurance program which incorporates more extensive maternity coverage than that currently provided. 7. Provision to each affected employee of a 10% base salary increase. 8. In addition to the proposed salary increase , provision of a 10% salary differential between the E step of an individual occupying the position of Detective (in- cludina Detective incentive compensation) and the A step of the Sergeant classification, 10€ differential between the E step_Qf the Sergeant classification and the A step of the Lieutenant classification, and 10% between the E step of the Lieutenant classification and the A step of the Captain classification. - 9. Provision to each affected employee designated a "Corporal" of an incentive payment equivalent to that pro- vided to Detectives. 10. Provision to each affected employee placed in an "on-call" status (other than with regard to court subpoenas) of four hours compensation for each day in such status at straight time. 11. Provision to each affected employee acting out of classification for. 31 or more cumulative shifts in any fiscal year of compensation for all such days in excess of 30 at the salary step of the higher classification which corres- ponds to the employee salary step in the lower classification. 12 . Amendment of the vacation accrual rates so as to provide the following to all affected employees : Years Days 1 - 3 10 4 - 5 15 6 - 9 1$ 10 - 14 21 15 - 19 25 20 plus 30 SILI-En & RREtsLER Chris Christiansen April 21 , 1982 Page Three There shall be no limitation upon accruing earned vacation days from year to year. Pursuant to an undated letter from William W. Floyd, Jr. , City Attorney, I am sending a copy of this correspondence to his attention. I would appreciate being contacted as soon as possible by whoever will be actually engaging in the meet and confer process in order that a commencement-date may be chosen. Additionally, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act requires that proposals be 'exchanged. If the City desires to propose any changes within the scope of representation and for the 1982-83 fiscal year, then any such proposals should be promptly communicated to the Association. Just as it would be impractical for the meet and confer process to start if the Association had not provided the City with its proposals , it will be likewise impractical for the meet and confer process to fruitfully progress without provision to the Association of any proposals by the City. Sincerely, SILVER SLER i char Z.ZiKe ler RMK:c cc: Barry Bruins, Pres. , POA William W. Floyd, Jr. , Esq. �I F iL